"The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"

adeelsiddiqui, you really lost me here. I mean, if I were placed, blindfolded, with wax in my ears, in the middle of the deepest, darkest forest on the planet, spun around a few times, given 20 minutes to wait to remove the stuff, "or we'll blow your ****ing head off!" and left to find my way out, not even knowing the country I was in, I wouldn't be lost any worse than that statement left me.

Backstabbers? How many tens of centauries back are you talking about? And you know this... how??? A better question would be, if you post stuff like this, how do you expect us to take you seriously? Oh, there is a direct cause and affect between the Israeli "situation" in the region (whatever the hell that means), and Muslim terrorism. Extremists on both sides seem hell-bent to cause as much grief, anguish and chaos as they can manage, which is an awful lot. But posts like this are not going to enlighten anyone here... quite the opposite.

 

That is a horrible thing to say, and whether you intended it to or not it crosses the line into anti-semitism. You can't say that however many thousands or millions of people are 'backstabbers, lazy, anyother stereotype.' Not only is it not true it is prejudice and leads prolongues inaccurage stereotypes. Were there Jews who were backstabbers? I'm sure there were. Are there Arabs that are terrorists? Yes there are. But not every Arab is a terrorist that should be kicked out of a land, and not every Jew is a backstabber that should have been kicked out.

 

In those same posts I also condemned Islamic terrorism. I made a connection and expounded on it.

 

OK OK, i didnt want to make it sound like anything anti Jewish, sorry if I came across like that.

Many Jews during the prophets time backstabbed the muslims, and hence were mostly kicked out. There were those who payed the taxes and lived in harmony that were allowed to stay.

The Arabs, still had the image of jews from the time period of the Prophet, and hence they were against the establishment of a jewish state in and around Jerusalem.

hope that clears some it up somewhat...

again i apologize if i came across as anit semitic

 

I think we have figured out the problem. Arab nations base their foreign policy on what a few thousand people may have done 1500 years ago.

 

Once again DaDa, you are misinformed.

1) Palestinians ARE allowed into most Arab countries. In fact, we have almost as many Palestinians in the UAE as any other nationality, and I guarantee you Palestinians are allowed into Saudi because I know some that live there.

2) Palestinians, specifically, are being granted citizenship in several Arab countries, and I live in one of those countries.

3) As adeelsidiqui said, why don't you just move all the Israelis to the US or wherever they came from before they invaded Palestine?

4) You're such a hypocrite - Israel's only claim to the land is religion, while you don't believe in religion. The only scripture that can prove Israel owns this land is the same type of scripture that proves Moses split the ocean and Jesus performed miracles, which would in turn indicate that, if the scriptures are true, then so is religion. If they are not, then Israel has no claim to the land - they invaded Palestine the same way Iraq tried to invade Kuwait.

5) I'm not a big fan of palestinians and their mentality or culture. However, if there were people in the WTC on 9/11 that you didn't like, I'm sure you'd have room for pity in your heart after the ordeal everyone involved went through.

Get your facts straight DaDa. They are allowed, they are granted citizenship, and if you disregard religion, they have the right to the land.

 

He is reffering to a specific situation in which the Jews backstabbed the Muslims I think. I'm not sure what, but I think that's what he meant.

 

Rocket104,

Are you kidding??

I understandw e have different views regarding Islam, but we are both Muslims andi f you can't point out the errors in that piece I'm shocked...

That is absolutely not true, I guarantee it. All I can give you is my word here, but I will travel with you around the entire Middle East to prove it to you if you want.

Jihad is something every Muslim must learn about. If you follow the Qura'an, then you are obliged to know everything about Jihad. But it doesn't say in the Qura'an that America is the enemy or that NOW is the time. Jihad happens once and the Qura'an gives you the conditions under which Jihad becoes accepteable. Sure there have been people speaking agianst the Great Satan and all that, but no one can justify Jihad now.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem? That's bull****. That's not the Muslim OR Arab way of thinking. Isn't that what George Bush said a few years ago? I could be mistaken.



May I ask where you live and what your origin is? I get the feeling you don't live in the Middle East, but ofcourse I could be wrong.

There are no slaves in the UAE. That's proposterous. Anyone who has been to the UAE will attest to that. The closest thing we have to slaves here is the housemaids, which is a direct result of having such HUGE families which requires more assistance to take care of.


Come on now... I agree that there's a lot of true stuff in that article. In fact MOST of it is true. But once in every few paragraphs you spot something so ridiculous.

 

This is not true. 99 percent will never meet an Isaeli, but most will meet Jews because it doesn't say in European or American passports what your religion is, so they get into Middle Eastern countries when/if they like. Best example is University proffesors, there are plenty of Jewish ones that just don't say they're Jewish.

 

I think he means they won't knowingly meet a Jew face to face. It is hard to break your preconcieved notions about Jews if you are not aware that the Jews you meet are actually Jews. In all the countries that do not allow the open practice of other religions *cough*Saudi*cough* it will be very hard for the populace to lean tolerence for other religions.

 

There is no RIGHT to any land.

The land is Israels by Conquest, just as every piece of land in the world has been garnered.

The Palastinians could already have the darned West Bank if they would quit blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians.

Sane and Adeel, you two seem to never admit the role that your religion is playing in all of this...read Faos post about apologizing, a great read and glad to see there are some Muslims willing to step up.

DD

 

The word conquest doesn't represent the action. The word you're looking for is invasion. The U.S. stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait, but did help Israel invade Palestine.

So the way I see it, invasion is ok. In which case, what's wrong with people who want to invade the world?

If a criminal walks up to you, beats you up in a "fair fight" and takes your wallet, does that mean the wallet is rightfully his/hers? Answer this question for me.

If you remove religion from the equation DaDa, Israel have no claim to the land. Even when you include religion, their claim is not greater than that of the Palestinians. What these pansies don't realize is that Islam and Juddaism originate from the same God, which is why both their religions claim that the land belongs to them.

 

when was i ever intolerant about another religion or person? (other than jazz fans)

SJC is racist and wants to eradicate another religion, no matter all the non terrorists. The sad thing is he probably represents a majority of his type.

 

Here, DaDa, I have to disagree with you. Ireland is the ancestral home of, let's see here... the Irish! Would you say it should have rightfully belonged to the English, because they used overwhelming force to invade and occupy (one of my favorite phrases right now) the island? And for the English to throw the Scottish common folk, because they could, with the cooperation of some corrupt clan chiefs, out of their own ancestral lands, and ship thousands of them to Northern Ireland, helped them"divide and conquer" Ireland, and played the native Irish and the Scots against each other. Worked pretty well for the English, as a matter of fact, and strengthened their hold on Ireland, while weakening the Scottish grip on their own ancestral lands.

Where does this relate here? The Jewish people have an ancestral claim on much of the area they currently occupy. The Palestinians, or the ethnic groups who morphed into "the Palestinians", have some claims to parts of the area as well. So do the Arab tribal groups who are the backbone of support for the Kings of Jordan, the ones who made up the Arab Legion that fought so well during the '67 war, and when they put paid to the attempt by the Palestinians to take over Jordan.

For the last several decades, the surrounding Arab states have used the Palestinian people in much the same way the English used the Scots. They made no serious attempt to integrate the refugees into their societies, they kept the majority in camps, in bad conditions, and blamed that on Israel... instead of accepting blame where it belonged, with their own governments. There was no logical reason to keep the Palestinians in the camps, but there was a political one. If large numbers of them had become content to live in their new circumstances, it would have diminished their use as tools against the on-going conflict with Israel. In short, having them in camps was politically useful. The use of the camps also helped prop up their own governments. And, by not integrating them into their societies, they didn't have to worry about the influence they might bring to bear on their own politics. Putting thousands of Scots in Ireland was a political tool of the English, for many of the same reasons. That's where I'm drawing my parallel.

I guess I'll stop now. I'm sure a whole host of folks will disagree with me, whether they post about it or not. Israeli extremists have used the threat of the Palestinian extremists for their own political purposes, and are using that as an excuse to annex lands that the rest of the world never thought were intended to be part of the Jewish State. Hell, both candidates for President, here in the States, are using the threat from extremists for their political purposes. (one far more than the other, but that's my opinion, of course)

Just an attempt to put a little of my take into the discussion. And, again, just my opinions. (assuming they're coherent enough, given my lack of sleep)

 

Maybe we should stop trying to associate these terrorists with Islam and start associating them with countries that export a S**t load of all and don't share the wealth with their people, and therefore breed hatred for not only their governments but the countries that support them.

 

Whoa whoa whoa. This is BS. Before anyone thinks this is the only reading of Islamic history (though it's probably too late)...

adeel - learn to read into things a little more. This is an ignorant comment.

The prophet attacked a Jewish tribe because they allied themselves with a group persecuting the first Muslims. He didn't attack them because they were Jewish. He attacked them because they were allies with the Meccans and attacking them first. They just happened to be Jewish. If you want to read into it as an attack against a religion, then you're buying into the anti-Jewish propaganda espoused by radical Islamists.

It's like saying the USA is attacking Islam because the Americans in Fallujah are taking down supporters of al-Sadr, who are Muslim. Nooooo -- it's because they are inciting violence, right?

Historically, after the Prophet's death, there were many instances of Jews and Muslims living peacefully. Jewish people held many high posts during the Fatimid era (the only one I know well at this point), as an example.

Guess where the Jewish went during the Spanish reconquista. Any ideas? Did they go into Europe or did they move to Africa, where they lived with Muslims?

(You can talk about the non-Muslim tax, the justification for the war on Iraq, etc., the point here is that adeel's comment is wrong. That justification for anti-semitism is wrong.)

 

DING DING DING

 

I'm in the US.

I do believe Wahhabism is sick. It is ignorant, espouses an intolerant brand of Islam, and is contrary to the learned ideals that were a proud part of Islamic history. After everything I've read (not experienced, I'm sure you can attack that if you want), I think it is likely true that Wahhabis treat the Jihad concept as only this concept of guerilla war, and it's much, much more than that.

As for slavery, okay, fine, it's not in the UAE. Is it in other locales?

I know what you're saying - nothing is 100% true. However, that article points out so many things about Israel, its history with respect to other countries both in and out of the Middle East, and the Palestinian conflict that I feel it's worth reading.

The best thing in this case is hearing from other people about the discrepancies. Thanks for doing that.

Email personally if you feel the need to discuss this further, as I don't think most of this has to do with the thread.